It will come as no surprise to the largely libertarian technology industry that big government has done little to advance the interests of Silicon Valley. But you might raise your eyebrows at the degree to which the US government is hurting the very people it tries to help.
As a general rule, Silicon Valley has been happiest …

COMMENTS

Page:

Ridiculous

I've worked in silicon valley for more than 20 years. The opinion that silicon valley doesn't benefit from government programs would be laughable if it wasn't so annoyingly persistent. Sadly it's easy to find tech people in the valley who hold this view. And yet a huge fraction of the valley's economy derives from government funded research, both corporate and spinning out of universities. Not to mention direct government contracts and mandates. And defense work. And DARPA directed development efforts. And spin offs from government labs. In my career, I've been either a early stage hire or founder of four tech startups. Not one has been impeded by federal or state government policy, and more than one has benefited from government research and export promotion policies. Even tax policy has generally been encouraging rather than detrimental, ranging from R&D credits to end user tax incentives.

Snap

Your right! Absolutely

Especially when it comes to spying, privacy invasion, and the monetary system.

While I won't junk your post (you are a tech after all and entitled to your opinion) I would like to at least point out, that the US government's number one export is war. And that it's unsustainable, and the signs of this unsustainability are now beginning to show, all one need do is tune out of corporate controlled media and tune in to information like zerohedge, or market-ticker and you will quickly understand the end game is approaching.

If you ever stop to think maybe the tech being developed isn't in the best interest of the public, and arguably humanity itself.

Don't get me wrong, I am a veteran as well, while you profited off government promotions, I exposed myself to god knows what with pay you would laugh at. I know the US needs a good defense. But the problem now is defense has become offense, while the constitution has become intermittent. In every angle, physics and electronics are now abused, and not against terrorists anymore, now it's the American people who are the targets.

Maybe you can be the next one with your four start-ups who comes up with the next killer app

like Internet ID, or one of the other soul sucking technologies that seem to be proposed by our worthless officials which crush dissent, and make the true thieves protected.

But like I said, I didn't junk your post, because I give you respect as a fellow inventor and tech.

Your tax dollars at work.

"And yet a huge fraction of the valley's economy derives from government funded research, both corporate and spinning out of universities. Not to mention direct government contracts and mandates. And defense work. And DARPA directed development efforts. "

Yep. Warcarp is where it's at. Money from universities is where it's at. All deficit funded.

The only ridiculous thing, Michael17, is that you assume that the governement owns you stock and barrel. "Tax incentives". Imagine that. The wise overlord suddenly decides to not rob me! Praise be!

Since when is the Reg a libertarian soapbox?

Since when is the Reg a libertarian soapbox?

Since quite some time ago. Not all folks at El Reg are libertarians and/or highly conservative gentlepersons, but several of them quite prominently are. Tim Worstall and Andrew Orlowski spring to mind as the blinking examples. You’ve got folk like Jane Fae or Trevor Pott who generally are pretty left of center and others scattered everywhere else.

The difference between something like El Reg and another rag (for example Faux Moos) is that there is no pressure from the editors/owners/what-have-you to write with a given political/social/economic viewpoint. El Reg is a soapbox for whatever the authors choose to write about; so long as it’s on topic (science and technology) and doesn’t poke anyone in the eye badly enough that they send in the robot death machines.

Frankly, I like that better than I do many of the alternatives. "Freedom of speech" means that you have to give airtime to those you disagree with as well as those who compliment your own beliefs.

All of that said...this particular piece has ensured that Mr. Asay is planet deeply on my personal "be very careful about what you talk to this person about" list. Right next to scientologists and people holding "Palin for prez" placards.

It isn't just tech...

And wasn't it LACK of government intervention...

...that resulted in more than a few of the most-remembered financial disasters in recent memory? The collapse of a private bank whose name happened to spark fear that the United States itself was collapsing (known to be a factor that led to the Great Depression)? The S&L scandal of the 1980's? The collapse of banks supposedly "too big to fail" at the turn of this millennium? And IIRC, most of these failures were mainly due to moves made by the banks/institutions themselves, not by the government, who essentially had to clean up the mess they made AFTERWARDS.

Next time...

Half-truth

To have a sensible conversation, one must draw a distinction between regulation and intervention. Sensible, enforced regulations are not necessarily a bad thing, such as regulations that used to require banks keep a certain ratio of reserve to money lent. (a regulation, I might add, that government relaxation of has caused the various bubbles we've seen over the last 30 years). Regulations that require you to front at least half the face value of a stock when you buy at margin (instead of the 10% that was the rule before the 1929 crash) are sensible.

These things are passive in nature and serve to protect people from abusive practices. These things are the government playing referee, keeping the game fair and making sure the playing field doesn't have whirring saw blades protruding.

On the other hand, there is active governmental intervention, such as bailing out a bank, or an ailing car manufacturer, where the government takes a step further into not only protecting people from abuse, but trying to assume responsibility for people's success. In these examples, the government isn't the referee any more, they're a player. Refusing to allow GM to collapse, for example was one of the biggest affronts to the free market in known history. If a company is too bloated and sluggish to adapt to changing demands, they DESERVE to go under, thus making room for more innovative companies to succeed.

The last line of your comment is particularly unnerving. "the government [...] essentially had to clean up the mess they made AFTERWARDS." The government didn't HAVE to do anything. The government found it politically expedient to do something, or at least politically risky to do nothing. The beauty of a properly functioning free market is that the government doesn't have to screw around with it all the time. When the government starts meddling, they create market inefficiencies/imbalances, resulting in issues that then require further government meddling, repeat ad nauseum. The reality is that if the government kept its nose where it belonged (refereeing, not playing), many/most of the issues we've seen in recent memory would simply have never occurred in the first place.

We'd all be better off if the government didn't think it was their job to make people and businesses successful, and the only way that's going to happen is if people take responsibility for themselves. And therein, as they say, lies the rub.

US is biggest in everything

You consume most energy.

You take out the most loans from your grandkids.

You have the biggest free economy.

You have by far the biggest government which is dwarfing the economy.

Wasn't US gov. that created and now owns some the biggest banks in the world (Freddie/Fannie)? This was done by the way of gov. regulation and way before the economy collapsed. Looking at that measure only US could be called communist country.

So St. Peter is showing the newbie around heaven....

... which is apparently less exclusive but more segregated then you might have thought, and when he gets to the area where the (insert your favorite truth monopolist God botherers here) are he whispers, "Shhhhhh! Here's where the ___________ are and they think they're the only ones up here!"

In that vein, I don't like bringing this up to libby's and tea partiers but... have you ever noticed how the countries which are eating our lunch (here in the US, and Europe too!) all tend to have VERY involved governments?

Great point

But dragging in poor Adam Smith is a bit harsh. Not his fault the West cherry-picked one of his works while conveniently ignoring the others (in which the need for a strong socialist-base government to under-pin the capitalism was discussed, for example).

The largest it's ever been!

So you're saying gov.us isn't involved?

They're so involved, they're bothering EVERYONE. I think they easily hold the record for toppling governments, installing puppet dictatorships and juntas, or simply starting wars for the heck of it. Feh, they'll even do it on behalf of their companies, going a very long way beyond mere gunboat assisted economic policy making. And is scoring lower on the "as it says on the tin" scale to boot.

Bull

When the government took microsoft to court it was because they were engaged in criminal activities. Such activities do nothing for the tech industry or consumers or society. They don't benefit anyone except those participating in the crime. In the end microsoft didn't get much more than a slap on the wrist. The internet was originally developed by th government. You seem to forget that.

Well put DemonX

Transistor And Hewlett-Packard

..are creations of USG. The first by Bell Labs, the second grew in the Signal Corps (Bill Hewlett) and after that from lots of USG electronics work in aircraft, Radar and radios. All the killtech had to be tested and HP was happy to supply high-end gear for that.

Then Dave Packard was Deputy Secretary of Defense for a few years during the Vietnam war. That surely didn't hurt in the later HP efforts to sell into the Aerospace/Defense sector. Agilent is still big in the aerospace/defense/intelligence business (directly or by selling expensive measurement devices to contractors). NASA needed HP also for quite a few things.

HP is considered the "seed of Silicon Valley". So the Pentagon seeded Silicon Valley.

4) Politicians demand fealty from corporations and take action when they don't get it. No coincidence in the different attitude of US gov to MS since 1990 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?cycle=2010&id=d000000115 hmmm spend no money get DoJ'd, spend lots and a blind eye is turned.

5) Smith would be turning in his grave to be called socialist - he was a liberal (as am I). But will concede there has been a huge collective brain fart by the media by equating free-markets to capitalism.

Great article, but

Great article, except for the fact that it offered no facts, no clear line of reasoning, and in substance nothing more than tired slogans.

The author's assertion that the 'accidental agents of revolution' are begin tarred with the brush of imperialism because of a speech is just that - an assertion. He overestimates the importance of State Department speeches and underestimates the intelligence of foreigners. If Twitter really is a threat, foreign governments will treat it that way; if it isn't, they won't [case in point: Iran blocked Twitter during those post-election riots a year or so ago, before any grand speechifying by Clinton].

On top of all this is the fact that promoting freedom in Middle Eastern fiefdoms was never Google or Twitter's goal in the first place; even assuming the author of TFA is right, there's still no harm to silicon valley.

Asay is right and wrong

Right on our need to keep Federal meddling out of start ups. Yes, the Feds have been involved in Silicon Valley inventions, but for Federal benefit, not just for the sake of doing it. The best thing the Feds did for Silicon Valley in the 1970s was deregulate the telecommunications industry, which helped drive the innovation which provide a large consumer market for the Internet and mobile communications.

Where Matt is wrong is in quoting Morozov's article. I just read this yesterday, having picked up the FP magazine in an airport. I laughed out loud at how wrong Morozov got it. Granted, this article was written in late 2010, and published in early January. But reading it on 24 January was quite entertaining. Morozov completely jumped the shark on this. Egypt was the Facebook revolution.

I am amazed Asay would use this article as an example. It appears the U.S. government's engagement with youth group leaders (started under the Bush administration), and the drive for freedom of the Internet accomplished in Egypt what took an army to accomplish in Iraq.

Help or get out of the way...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/megaphone_32.pngV C money goes to entrepreneurs with a track record (the club) or new entrepreneurs with established customers and revenue. There is almost no money going to first time entrepreneurs with a product that is more than a website (may include hardware) and needs money to get to market. The gov't should allocate some high-risk money to get some of these companies off the ground. If you aren't offering cash, shut up and get out of the way.

7. Labor laws, to prevent the capital owners from screwing the rest of us.

It'd be easy to go on and on. The problem with the anti-government crowd is that their members keep running for political office. If you're so sure that government doesn't work, why should we trust you to run it?

Re: Allow me to help out your memory

1. Market regulation should be to prevent coercion, fraud and collusion. If the markets were actually open, meaning without overbearing regulations designed to heighten barriers to entry, we shouldn't have to care if some "spin out of control" as others businesses will crop up to replace them that may be more stable. Acceptable risk/ reward ratios being determined by the customers rather than government. Of course that would mean institutions like banks would have to open their books for inspection but instead we have the Fed which keeps books closed because they worry if the public actually knew how bad things were there would be runs on banks on a weekly basis.

2. The private sector would be happy to provide highways in the same way they did railroads. Unfortunately, most people would balk at having to pay a toll that actually covered the cost of maintaining the road plus a small profit. The result is the cost gets hidden in taxes and acts as a subsidy to the auto industry because folks don't realize the actual cost of driving and make less than ideal choices of vehicles as a result.

3. You finally win one but remember who actually did the work to break up the phone monopoly and opened up the world to invent devices like the iPhone, Droid X, etc. It was MCI who did all the legwork before government woke up 8 months later. Without that the internet as we know it is much less useful and would probably be run by @&T.

6. Socialism? Really? So-so Security isn't something anyone should count on in the long run as Ponzi schemes have a way of running out. Mediocre^H^H^H^Hcare is... I think I've made my point. Oh, for future reference, citing two of the most regressive taxes US citizens are burdened with isn't a great way to make a point. You are aware only poor people pay them, no?

7. You are really just restating #1 here aren't you? The difference is using terms like "Labor" and "us" to bring it home. Ok, let's do the old arguement; "If you don't like you're job, work somewhere else." "But there is nowhere else in this, or any other, economy!" Now can we see that regulations which have raised the barrier to entry into any given market don't help anyone, especially workers?

We finally agree on one thing, it would be easy to go on and on. I've fixed this for you; "The problem with the pro-government crowd is that their members keep holding political office. Being that I'm so sure that government doesn't work, why should I trust it to run me?"

Re: Anarchist vs. Libertarian

AC - you asked what the difference is. In practical terms or theoretical? In terms of theory, American Libertarians sort of correspond to Anarcho-Capitalists (which themselves are often damned passionately by all the anarcho-socialists and those that are just generally defined as anarchist). However, American Libtertarianism is something of a political movement of its own and acquires the usual baggage when theory is moved into the realm of practice (or at least active demagoguery). For example, Libertarians are anti-abortion and other such things, whilst the theory of anarchism includes less such riders on. Also, at the core of anarchism is usually a level of faith in humanity - i.e. a belief that we are better able to look after each other voluntarily then by means of some government. Libertarianism seems to me to be more a case of "get off my back". I guess to sum up the subtle difference (imo), Anarchism is about "we don't need a government to self-govern" and Libertarianism is about "get the government out of my way".

No doubt some would disagree and certainly there are some muppets who call themselves anarchist without really understanding the theory.

Re: Anarchist vs. Libertarian

@h4rm0ny,

Clearly you don't know the difference between the Tea Party and Libertarians. You see the Tea Party is a faction of the Republican party. Your assertion that "Libertarians are anti-abortion and other such things" is clearly, being generous, misguided. You seem to believe that a Tea Party member and a Libertarian is merely a distinction without a difference but you couldn't be further from reality. The truth is that the Libertarian position on abortion is, hang on to your socks, government should keep their snotty noses out of people's medical choices. Notice that this doesn't stop any given Libertarian from holding a personal opinion either way, merely that it isn't within the purview of government to force either on you.

In general, if you are looking to find the a position on anything ask yourself a simple question; who is better equipped to make decisions about you, your lifestyle, your family and your belongings? Choose one.

A. You and government isn't needed.

D. Government, but you get to pick from a small number of lifestyle options.

R. Government, but you get to pick from a small number of ways to spend your money.

L. You but government is a necessary evil to prevent others from forcing their decisions on you.

@AC

To get back to AC's answer, the difference seems to be one of extremity. Libertarians recognize a need for government as a check against the encroachment on an individuals rights by another entity. Anarchism doesn't seem go that far and I'll assume the theory says the greedy thugs are held in check by the rest of the populous. But then I'm a libertarian muppet and not an h4rm0nious one.

Internet search, social networking, and even email [...] need to be protected from foreign control

Obvious

It's clear this is the opinion of the US gov't, I don't see why Iran, N. Korea, China, etc wouldn't feel the same way. Oh, I see, the theory must be that the US gubbies aren't foreign regardless of where someone is from... no wait... globo corp... circular logi... stra... burni... DANGER! Will Robinson! DANGER! Alien approaching!

The title is too long.

"I can't help but think there has always been more opportunity in the government’s loopholes than in their legislation."

If that is so, then that is a rather damning verdict on the general quality of lawmaking. Not that it should surprise anyone or anything, Mark Twain wasn't very positive on the characters meddling there either, but that doesn't change that it gives rise to calls to finally get rid of the lawmakery and get some competent people in there.

That lawmakers are generally light on understanding anything but concocting the most unreadable verbiage is also well-known. What defies belief is how much they fail to work around the deficits by twisting the laws such that their reliance on deep technical understanding is minimised. But given that they thrive on meddling anyway, phat chance that'll happen.

The best "help" you can get from such a government is a sincere drive to reduce complexity and remove as many rules and laws as possible (but no more). But that also goes right against the grain of the sort of personality that inevitably is attracted to "government".

This is not to say that I agree with the premise of the article, which actually I don't. The problem there is that after a bunch of technologists, even the starry eyed "do no evil"-saying kind, but all the others too down to the blue tarnished in a redmond gutter kind, grow too big to stay sane, they start to think themselves more important than anyone else and start to lose touch with, even become harmful to the society they're rooted in. And moderating that is exactly what government ought to be for.

But in the Capitalist America, big business already bought the government. Why they haven't already reorganised the largely useless senate and congress middle management away and let the lobbyists vote directly for the laws they're writing already anyway as a cost-cutting measure they someday will have to explain to their shareholders; before the hostile takeover comes.

"Dear US gov"

"Stay the hell out of Silicon Valley"

I wholeheartedly concur but the author might be disappointed by my meaning. I assume the real meaning is 'Stay the hell out but keep the money flowing in.' What's that? I hurt your feelings? From the SF Gate, "Tax breaks for corporations that promise to help Obama achieve that goal will be the topic du jour for Silicon Valley CEOs with whom Locke is scheduled to meet behind closed doors." How about this little tidbit from the Mercury News; "President Barack Obama, looking to gain backing from Silicon Valley for his just-released 2012 budget -- which includes generous support for research and development amid calls from congressional Republicans for deeper spending cuts -- is scheduled to meet privately with tech heavyweights Thursday evening..."

You want to play both sides? The Valley wants the people's money but doesn't want to deal with the people's rules. I gotta say; I'm sorry pumpkin, it doesn't work that way.

When

The sad thing is that US tech has become a theme park version of itself, dedicated to providing style over substance "innovation" - most of which is really just shrinking, wrapping, and advertising - while starving real invention of useful cash and talent.

The reality is that the smart people who would have been inventing cutting-edge tech fifty years ago now have useless jobs playing with numbers for Wall St where they design the models that create financial meltdowns.

And that's the kind of convergence of idiocy you get when you leave industrial strategy to "free" markets with the morals and attention span of a crack-addicted vampire bat.

@Micheal 17: Nice list!

Also:

+= putting people into space, defeating Hitler (didn't outsource that one to the highest bidder: Halliburton, Blackwater).

I regret dragging poor Adam Smith into things since as pointed out, his "invisible hand" is certainly not representative of ALL of his work, but it is what he is best known for today and illustrates the error of the whole "markets should make all decisions" argument.

Whether the fellow would consider himself a "socialist" whatever that neologism might have meant in his day is certainly doubtful.

It's also doubtful that any real "socialist" would recognize China or India as being in their camp today.

Certainly, GDP growth is hardly an absolute measure of goodness (environmentalists should perish the thought), and yes (@AC 22:23), countries starting behind the curve (China was mentioned) have an easier time of producing growth numbers than countries once frequently seen at the top.

My point: somewhere between laissez-faire capitalism and a completely planned command economy is the sweet spot for ... any place on Earth I can imagine. Different spot probably, for different nations but certainly it's at neither extreme, and libertarians seem not to get this and are on the wrong side of history. The emerging super-powers of China & India seem to be finding their sweet spots. The US (although not Canada, interestingly), the UK, and others in Europe seem to be looking back on that invisible hand.